Why Academic Boycott: A Reply to an Israeli Comrade

by Tanya Reinhart

May 18, 2002

Editor's Note: The following is a letter by Tanya Reinhart*
to Baruch Kimmerling, an Israeli sociology professor at Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
regarding calls for an academic boycott against Israel. Both Reinhart and
Kimmerling are contributing writers to DV.

Tel
Aviv, Israel

May
17, 2002

Dear
Baruch Kimmerling,

Last
week, you published in Ha'aretz a moving letter defending the freedom
of expression of a group of Israeli professors, including myself, who signed a
European petition calling for a moratorium on European support to the Israeli
academia. Here is what you wrote:

The
Coordinating Council of the Faculty Associations [of the Israeli universities]
issued a public statement, which appeared in Ha'aretz on May 6,
denouncing the call of scientists in Europe and North America to declare a
boycott on the Israeli academia, following... supposed war crimes that the
State of Israel committed in the occupied territories.

As
someone who acted immediately and actively against this boycott, because I saw
this as a blatant violation of academic freedom, which is the essence of
academic research and teaching, I was shocked by this statement. The shock
stems from the content of the document, which not only denounces the boycott,
but also denounces that minority of the Israeli academic personnel that support
the proposed boycott.

For
precisely the same reason that one should oppose the boycott, one should oppose
the denouncement of academic members who think differently. Instead of
insisting on the freedom of speech and thought of all its members, the council
launched an attack on this freedom.... I demand the immediate resignation of
those responsible for this outrageous public statement.

In
the present climate in Israel, it is comforting, and far from trivial, to hear
voices still defending old fashioned ideas like freedom of speech. For this
reason, I appreciate your letter. Nevertheless, I would like to explain here
why your defense still leaves me utterly unmoved.

BACKGROUND
ON THE ACADEMIC BOYCOTT

First
some background on the academic boycott. An accurate description of the events
that set the Israeli academia roaring was given in a Ha'aretz
article by Tamara Traubman:

"The
first time that the international scientific community imposed a boycott on a
state was during the Apartheid regime in South Africa. The second time is being
considered at present, and now the boycott is directed against Israel and its
policy in the territories. Several manifestos calling for the imposition of a
boycott, on various levels, have been published in recent days by professors
from abroad...The first...was initiated by a pair of British researchers,
Professors Hilary and Steven Rose of Britain's Open University. The manifesto
suggests that European research institutes stop treating Israel like a European
country in their scientific relations with it, until Israel acts according to
UN resolutions and opens serious peace negotiations with the Palestinians.
(Israel enjoys the status of a European country in many European research
programs). Over 270 European scientists, including about 10 Israelis, signed
the manifesto. Although it is the most moderate of the boycotts being
formulated these days against Israel, the manifesto aroused a great deal of
anger in the Israeli scientific community..." ("The Intifada
Reaches the Ivory Tower," Ha'aretz, April 25, 2002)

We
can distinguish three forms of the academic boycott. The first is part of a larger
cultural boycott -- cultural events in Israel have been boycotted for quite a
while. In the academic sphere, the boycott is on any cooperation with
institutional events of the Israeli academia in Israel. This means that
scholars cancel participation in conferences and official academic events (e.g.
some refuse an honorary degree offer) (1).

This
form of boycott is already a fact. The reason is that it is the easiest step
for individual scholars to take on their own. It is not always easy to distinguish
between those canceling participation in events of the Israeli academia for
safety reasons and those who are boycotting, but the phenomenon is quite large,
as Traubman reports:

The
most obvious expression of the isolation of the Israeli scientific community is
the refusal of researchers to come here... “Whereas in the past Israel held
many international congresses, says Gideon Rivlin, the chair of Kenes
International, the principal organizer of such congresses, today there are no
longer any international congresses in Israel.” ... “Until 2004,” adds Rivlin,
“all the congresses in Israel have been canceled”... Brain researcher Prof.
Idan Segev...from HU [Hebrew University, Jerusalem], says that scientists tend
to refuse to come not only to scientific congresses, but also for joint
research projects as well. “At a conference abroad a short time ago, I met a
friend with whom I've been working for many years; every year he comes to
Israel for a few weeks to work with me,” says Segev. “This year he told me openly,
'I can't come, the moment I arrive, I am taking a political step.' For them
it's like going to South Africa.”(Ha'aretz, ibid.).

The
second, and more recent form, is economic sanctions on the Israeli academia.
This extends the other forms of economic pressure which have been observed for
a while: Consumer boycott; canceling European contracts with Israeli computer
companies
(http://www.israelinsider.com/channels/politics/articles/pol_0138.htm); and the
divestment movements in the US academy, where scholars and students in
Berkeley, Princeton, Harvard, and MIT call on their universities to divest from
US companies doing business in Israel, as means of pressure on these companies
not to help Israel's economy.

While
these actions target various aspects of the Israeli economy (industry and
agriculture, electronics companies, etc.) the academic boycott targets the
research funds of the Israeli academia, thus applying direct economic pressure
on the academia, as a central (and collaborating) part of the state of Israel.

As
Traubman reports, "Members of prestigious scientific bodies, such as the
Norwegian Academy of Sciences, have condemned Israel's actions in the
territories, and criticized their Israeli colleagues for their indifference to
the situation of Palestinian researchers, and the damage to academic
institutions in the Palestinian Authority. According to Israeli diplomatic
sources, steps to have Israel join several large European projects have been
postponed until further notice -- for example, accepting Israel as a member of
a particle acceleration project at the CERN laboratory in Geneva. The contacts
that began behind the scenes have been halted at this stage..." (Ha'aretz,
ibid.).

The
specific academic petition which ignited the fury of the Israeli academia falls
within this second type of boycott (2). This is a call for economic sanctions
on the Israeli academia in general, and not for full boycott of ties with
individual Israeli academics.

The
third form of the academic boycott, however, extends it also to this most
severe stage -- practiced in the South-Africa boycott -- of complete
international isolation of individual Israeli scholars. It prohibits any
contact with them -- invitations to conferences abroad, research
collaborations, publications, editorial boards, etc (3).

Among
the supporters of academic boycott, opinions are divided about the third form
of boycott. At the individual level, many Israeli academics oppose the
occupation and Israel's brutality in the territories. A large minority of them
is actively involved, like you, Baruch, in a daily struggle against all these.
Furthermore, among the goals of academic boycott is to encourage the Israeli
academics to take a more active part in struggle and resistance. For this, it
would help if we feel part of a large international community, sharing this cause,
rather than completely isolated from it. Personally, I support the first two
forms of academic boycott, but not the third form of individual boycott.

Nevertheless,
there is no doubt that if the economic-institutional boycott is successful and
research funds to the Israeli academia are cut off, this will effect individual
researchers, including not only you and me, but also students and young
scholars who are supported by research grants. This is the logic of sanctions
-- they are meant to hurt the political and economic system, and in that
process, they inevitably hurt all segments of the targeted society. In South
Africa, the Blacks were among the first to suffer from the boycott. Still they
pleaded with the West to continue.

WHY
BOYCOTT

The
model of boycott followed here is, indeed, that which was formed in the case of
South Africa. Just a few years ago, in 1993, the whole world celebrated when
the Apartheid regime in South Africa collapsed after 50 years of brutal
discrimination and oppression. This change did not come about on its own. It
was the outcome of a long and painful struggle of the blacks in South Africa.
But the anti-Apartheid movement, throughout the world, also had an enormous
impact.

The
struggle was directed at governments on the one hand, and directly at
corporations doing business with SA, on the other. There were protests and
demonstrations demanding that an arms embargo be imposed. The pressure on
corporations to divest, targeted specific corporations with product boycotts
accompanied by demonstrations, stockholders speaking at meetings (churches who
owned stocks, could get a few people in), and much more.

Following
this pressure, in 1977 the UN Security Council imposed limited sanctions on
South Africa. Their impact was, in fact, limited as long as the great powers --
primarily UK and US -- found ways around them (like getting Israel to provide
arms, military training and oil to SA.). But during the eighties, the big
corporations were beginning to move out of their SA ties anyway, due to the
protest and turmoil it generated. Suddenly, there was a heavy economic price
for the continuation of Apartheid.

This
was combined with another aspect of pressure -- cultural boycott and social
isolation: South Africa was kicked out of international sports; professional
and academic organizations did not cooperate with South-African organizations;
there was a ban on conferences and cultural events. All these helped. South
Africa was forced to change (4).

I
have no doubt that you supported the South Africa boycott. Where we may differ
is in the question whether the Israeli case is sufficiently similar. I believe
that even much before its present atrocities, Israel has followed faithfully
the South-African Apartheid model. Since Oslo, Israel has been pushing the
Palestinians in the occupied territories into smaller and smaller isolated
enclaves, promising, in return, to consider calling these enclaves, in some
future, a Palestinian 'state' -- a direct copy of the Bantustans model. (For a detailed
description of the early Apartheid stages, see my article in Ha'aretz Magazine, May 27, 1994)

Unlike
South Africa, however, Israel has managed so far to sell its policy as a big
compromise for peace. Aided by a battalion of cooperating
"peace-camp" intellectuals, they managed to convince the world that
it is possible to establish a Palestinians state without land-reserves, without
water, without a glimpse of a chance of economic independence, in isolated
ghettos surrounded by fences, settlements, bypass roads and Israeli army posts
-- a virtual state which serves one purpose: separation (Apartheid). "We
are here and they are there" -- behind the fences, as Barak put it.

But
no matter what you think of the Oslo years, what Israel is doing now exceeds
the crimes of the South Africa's white regime. It has started to take the form
of systematic ethnic cleansing, which South Africa never attempted. After
thirty-five years of occupation, it is completely clear that the only two
choices the Israeli political system has generated for the Palestinians are
Apartheid or ethnic cleansing ("transfer"). Apartheid is the
'enlightened' Labor party's program (as in their Alon or Oslo plan), while the
other pole is advocating slow suffocation of the Palestinians, until the
eventual "transfer" (mass expulsion) can be accomplished.
("Jordan is the Palestinian state," is how Sharon put it in the
eighties.) (5). Even those who can swallow "made in Israel" Apartheid
cannot just watch silently as Sharon carries this second vision out.

Given
that the US backs Sharon, no UN resolution has any force.This was made perfectly clear by the latest
shocking example in which Israel managed to defy the resolution regarding a
search committee for the events of Jenin. The only way left to exert pressure
on Israel to stop is through the protest of people around the world, including
use of the most painful means of boycott. As an Israeli, I believe that this
external pressure may save not only the Palestinians, but also the Israeli
society, which is, in fact, not being represented by the political system. In a
recent poll, 59% of the Jewish Israelis support immediate evacuation of most
settlements, followed by a unilateral withdrawal of the army from the occupied
territories (http://www.peace
now.org/Campaign2002/PollMay2002.rtf). But with no external
pressure, no political party will carry out this will of the majority.

WHY
THE ACADEMIA

I
am not sure whether your objections to the moratorium on research funds to the
Israeli academia, which we called for, is because you object to any divestment
or boycott moves, or whether you think the academia should be exempt. Many
Israeli academics hold the latter view, so I suppose it is also yours. You say
in your letter that the reason you "acted immediately and actively against
this boycott" is "because I saw this as a blatant violation of
academic freedom, which is the essence of academic research and
teaching."This is a very peculiar
use of the concept of academic freedom. What is under consideration here is
your freedom to access international research funds. You seem to view this type
of freedom as an inalienable right, untouchable by any considerations of the
international community regarding the context in which its funds are used. But
it is not. The traditional spirit of the academia, no matter how much of it is
preserved in daily practice, is that intellectual responsibility includes the
safeguarding of moral principles. The international academic community has the
full right to decide that it does not support institutions of societies which
divert blatantly from such principles. You had no problem accepting this when
South Africa was concerned.

The
only question is whether there is anything about the Israeli academia (as an
institution, unlike individual resisting academics) that could exempt it from
the condemnation and pressure of the international community. Let us turn to
the broader arsenal of the arguments used to argue that. You find yourself here
in large company. The Israeli academia, which was not so impressed with mere
condemnations and the ongoing ban on official academic events in Israel, got on
its feet when its freedom to access international funds was at stake. In a
matter of days, they organized a counter petition (to the British petition
above), which has gathered thousands of signatures (www7.huji.ac.il/euroisrael2002).
Dr. Ben Avot, one of the organizers of the counter petition "says that
'the signatories come from a wide array of opinions about the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ranging from members of [the right-wing]
`Professors for National Strength' to people who are usually identified with
the left, such as Prof. Baruch Kimmerling'" (Traubman, Ha'aretz,
ibid.).

A
basic principle that the counter-petition you signed is based on, is that
science should always be separated from politics. It is this line which enabled
the Israeli academia to live in peace with the occupation for thirty five
years.Never in its history did the
senate of any Israeli university pass a resolution protesting the frequent
closure of Palestinian universities, let alone voice protest the devastation
sowed there during the last uprising. (Such resolution would be a violation of
the sacred principle of separation -- more examples of this below.) If in
extreme situations of violations of human rights and moral principles, the
academia refuses to criticize and take a side, it collaborates with the
oppressing system. But as we saw, it is precisely this principle, and the
collaboration that it entails, which the international community is now
condemning.

Interestingly,
the principle of separation of science and politics never applies when what is
at stake is defending the interests of Israel. The powerful Israeli scientific
lobby managed to arrange an editorial in the central scientific journal Nature,
which repeats faithfully the arguments of this counter petition ("Don't
Boycott Israel's Scientists," Nature, May 2, 2002).

What
are these ("non political") arguments? One is that "A unilateral
boycott of Israeli academics unfairly identifies Israel as the only party
responsible for the violent shift in Israeli-Palestinian relations and ignores
ongoing attacks against innocent Israeli citizens. Such a one-sided perspective
is contrary to academic standards of truth-seeking" (Israeli
counter-petition). "[S]hould we also boycott Palestinian researchers
because the Palestinian Authority has not done enough to prevent suicide
bombers?" (Nature editorial). Well, this is precisely what
people of conscience no longer buy. Basic human values and standards do not
place equal responsibility on the oppressor and the oppressed, when the
oppressed tries to rebel. Even when we strongly condemn the means used by the
oppressed, this does not exempt the oppressor. I take it for granted that you,
Baruch, place the responsibility for thirty-five years of occupation and
Apartheid on the Israeli governments, and not on the Palestinian people. I
assume that you just did not bother to read the petition you signed.

But
the next set of arguments is probably the heart of the matter for many. The
Israeli academy views itself as liberal, democratic, and sensitive to issues of
human rights. Hence "to boycott Israeli academics would endanger the
democratic values and respect for human rights this community works hard to
foster" (Israeli counter-petition). Most importantly, the academy views
itself as promoting values of coexistence and peace by means of a
"meaningful dialogue" with its Palestinian colleagues:"European programs have provided
important frameworks for Middle East scholars to meet... to discuss academic
topics of mutual interest, and to build informal interpersonal ties, thus
helping to counter years of accumulated misunderstanding and animosity."
(Ibid.). Hence, boycotting the Israeli academia will harm its devoted work of
reconciliation and peace.

Nature's
editorial is even more enthusiastic about this peace endeavor. "Science is
less political than other issues, and is a bridge for peace. That is what Leah
Boehm, then chief scientist at Israel's science ministry, enthusiastically told
Nature in 1995. Then, Israeli and Palestinian researchers were optimistic that
the peace process would cause funds to flow to joint Arab-Israeli projects from
the international community, reinforcing peace by contributing to dialogue, and
boosting research in the region..." Hence, Nature concludes, "the
world's scientific community" should "jump at" the opportunity
to support the Israeli academia, and thus, "encourage Middle-East
peace." Even Nature must admit that "subsequent events have left
these noble aspirations in tatters." But it calls on the scientific
community to help the Israeli academia (with research funds) to renew the
spirit of these wonderful years of dialogue. (This is emphasized further in
Nature's second editorial of May 16)

It
is typical and revealing that in proving the contribution of the Israeli
academia to dialogue and peace, this editorial of Nature cites only Israeli
(and one American) scholars. The Palestinian perspective is, apparently,
irrelevant. If it were, a very different perspective on that golden era of Oslo
and 'peace' would emerge.

Here
is a fragment of a report of Sari Hanafi, Associate Researcher at the
Palestinian Center for the Study of Democracy (6). It was written before the
Palestinian uprising, and describes an event of 1998/1999:

"In end of 1998, the Jerusalem
Spinoza Institute called the Palestinian University of Al-Quds (based in
Jerusalem) tocooperate with it in
order to organize an international conference, in August 1999, entitled 'Moral
Philosophy inEducation: The Challenge
of human Difference'... The pros [for accepting the invitation] were supported
by two arguments: first, the cooperation could help persuade the Ministry of
Education to recognize Al-Quds University, taking into account that
non-recognition is purely political; the second argument is related to the
first: it consists of trying to convince the Ministry of Interior to not expel
the administration and the main building of the universityoutside of Jerusalem (as announced once by
an Israeli official). In fact, these two arguments show that the romanticview of cultural cooperation between two
civil societies hide all the power imbalance between the two societies --between an occupied and occupying people:
'We are here to put apart divergence and talk on science, philosophy and
education far from politics,' as argued by the President of the Spinoza
Institute...

However
between May and August 1999, a serious incident happened: the Ministry of
Interior of the Barak government withdrew the Identity Document of Musa
Budeiri, a director of the Center of International Relations in Al-QudsUniversity and a resident of East Jerusalem.
Native of Jerusalem, his family has lived there for hundreds of years,under Ottoman, British and Jordanian rule.
He was given a tourist visa, valid for four weeks, and was told that he would
have to leave Jerusalem by August 22 -- Musa Budeiri is one of thousands of
other Palestinians in a similar situation. They all have the same problem: they
are subject to the threat of being turned into “tourists” in their birthplace.
2,200 Jerusalem ID cards of families (roughly 8,800 individuals) were
confiscated between 1996 and May 1999(according to the Israeli ministry of Interior)...

In the
opening session, Sari Nusseibeh, the president of Al-Quds University, contrary
to his habit, gave a very moving speech concerned exclusively with the case of
Musa Budeiri and his family. To outline the roots of the Budeiri family in this
city, he discussed a manuscript on Jerusalem history written by Musa's father,
which has never been edited.Sari
Nusseibeh, pioneer of the dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians, finished
his speech by saying that he is torn morally by these events, adding that the
Israelis should not expect to conduct further dialogue with Palestinians,as the latter are increasingly becoming
tourists [in their land]. If almost all of the participants were moved,
theorganizers were not. The president
of Jerusalem Spinoza Institute commented on Nusseibeh's speech saying that
“there is some military problems” between Israelis and Palestinians which have
not yet been resolved, while the rector of theHebrew University asked Nusseibeh where he can find the Budeiri
manuscript, as the Hebrew University would like to have it!!

Finally
the organizers of the conference refused to send the Minister of Interior a
petition in favor of Budeiri, signed by the majority of the participants. The
argument used was that there is a separation between the academic sphere and
the political one, and as scholars they cannot take a position. (6)

This
event took place in the days of peaceful Apartheid. Al-Quds University, Nature
finally acknowledged in its May 16 issue that, "Al-Quds University claims
that Israeli soldiers badly damaged laboratories and other buildings at its
campuses in El Bireh and Ramallah. The university has asked the Israeli
government and the international community to send fact-finding missions and to
help rebuild its infrastructure" (Declan Butler, European correspondent, Nature,
May 16, 2002)

As
the most decisive argument for why no moratorium on research funds should
apply, the Israeli counter petition and its echo in Nature point
out that this will harm the Palestinian academia. "Many European-funded
programs have explicitly aimed at enhancing scientific cooperation between
Israelis, Palestinians and Arab scholars...Freezing Israeli access to, and
participation in, such programs would...damage these important frameworks and
undermine the benefits to research" (Israeli counter petition). This theme
is further developed and emphasized in the more recent Nature
editorial of May 16.

Regardless
of what the facts are about this "energetic scientific
collaboration," this is the standard colonialist argument. The
colonialists were always certain that they are bringing progress to the
natives. Here is what Prof. Rita Giacaman of Birzeit University told me about
the matter:

Several individually linked projects began with Israelis since the
Oslo accords were signed, mainly because Europe and the US were luring
scientists with the carrot of money in a money starved environment, in exchange
for being used as 'evidence' for peace and equity having been achieved, when
the stick never stopped hitting Palestinian infrastructure, institutions,
political processes and academic life. It thus placed us in the political
arena, using us to show peace that does not exist and equity that exists even
less. Many of us Palestinian academics chose not to get involved in such
academic cooperative relations with Israelis and continued solidarity
activities [with Israelis], aimed at changing the political reality instead
-the root cause of the problem... Anyway, the issue is not about Israeli
scientists helping out. This is like taking away the right of villagers to till
their land and then giving them some food-aid instead. The issue is ending
occupation and allowing Palestinian to develop their institutions, including
scientific ones.
(Personal communication, May 2002).

If
continuing support to the Israeli academia is what the Palestinian academia
considers best for its future, we should hear it from them. What I hear from my
comrades in the Palestinian academia is only a full and unequivocal support for
the boycott.

(2)
Here is the full text of the British petition that we signed, which was
published in The Guardian (London) on April 6, 2002, with the
first 120 signatures:

Despite widespread international condemnation for its policy of
violent repression against the Palestinian people in the Occupied Territories,
the Israeli government appears impervious to moral appeals from world leaders.
The majorpotential source of
effective criticism, the United States, seems reluctant to act. However there
are ways of exerting pressure from within Europe. Odd though it may appear,
many national and European cultural and research institutions,including especially those funded from the
EU and the European Science Foundation, regard Israel as a European statefor the purposes of awarding grants and
contracts. (No other Middle Eastern state is so regarded). Would it nottherefore be timely if at both national
and European level a moratorium was called upon any further such support
unlessand until Israel abide by UN
resolutions and open serious peace negotiations with the Palestinians, along
the linesproposed in many peace plans
including most recently that sponsored by the Saudis and the Arab League.

(6)
Sari Hanafi, "Palestinian Israeli People to People program as a mechanism
of conflict resolution", lecture delivered at the 18th conference of the
General International Peace Research Association (IPRA), August 5-9, 2000,
Finland.